Hello Flavio,

> 26 Jul 17 23:58, you wrote to me:

>> I remember being in my car driving with my girlfriend some years ago
>> in  Minneapolis, MN. A 20ish year old guy asked if he could get a
>> ride. I  decided to give him a lift against the opinion of my
>> girlfriend (Based on  the look she gave me).  About 5-10 minutes
>> later he pulled a knife and  stuck it to my neck. He was sitting in
>> the back seat behind me. He asked  for my money. I at the time was not
>> carrying any weapon. I can't tell you how helpless I felt. Needless to
>> say I gave him the $45 that I had on me.

> But, at the time, if you had a gun with you, how could you defend
> yourself? He had your back, with a knife stuck to your neck.

If I had been carrying a handgun. Would I have used it to defend my girlfriend
and/or myself? That depends on the situation. Having a gun doesn't and
shouldn't mean IMHO that it should and has to be used. I look at use of a
handgun as a last resort action. Would I use a handgun to retain the $45 that
I had? No I would not. Would I have used a handgun to prevent the immanent
death of either my girlfriend or myself? Yes I would have. 

>> Again IMHO gun laws preventing people from owning or carrying
>> a gun does little if  anything to keep the gun out of the hands of the
>> criminals.

> I couldn't agree with you more. I live in Brazil, and here, to own a
> gun, you need to undergo a Kafkianesque bureaucracy that would raise a few
> eyebrows of communist-time Russians.

There are nightmarish bureaucracies here also. It makes me wonder sometimes
how the government can actually get a task actually done. But that's a topic
to be discussed elsewhere.

> Nevertheless, the drug dealers and all sorts of bad guys have access to the 
> state of the art on weaponry.

Sadly, that is all too true. Criminals never seem to have trouble acquiring
weapons of their choice. Regardless of what currently in place gun laws there 
may be.I am not of the mind that we should let things become a  "My gun's
bigger than yours" mentality.

>> I realize that some from other countries might say that "We don't have
>> that problem here". And that might be somewhat true. But then again we
>> are not  talking about life in other countries. I am not inferring
>> that we here do things better or worse than elsewhere.

> But I tell you... We do have this problem here. I can remember of two
>recent school shootings: One was on 2013, when a crazy guy bought a .38 Specia
> handgun from a friend for 20 USD and went to his old high school. He killed
> around 10 people before a police officer shot him.

As you may be aware we had a recent shooting event here that killed quite a
few people and injured many others. It seems that modified automatic weapons
were used to comit the crime. This event aparently executed by a man with no
previous criminal history. He simply used his wealth to buy and modify what
weapons he thought necessary to carry out his deadly deeds.

We could easily exchange a number of horror stories involving mass deaths. The
point as I see it is would banning gun ownership prevent such events from
happening in the future? 

> My father is a shooting sportsman and I've grown with weapons all
> around, I learned the responsability that carrying a gun brings with you.
> And also I can tell you that, in the city of Rio alone, from January
>until today, 121 police officers were killed here.

In checking I see about 39 law enfocement officers were killed in the line of
duty by gunfire in the last year nationwide.

>> Do the gun ownership restrictions there keep someone from getting a
>> gun if  they decide to use one?

> There's the right for self-defense, but it will be a long court battle.
[...]
> Even if I have a gun at home to protect my family, if someone breaks into 
> my house and I eventually shoot and kill the guy, I'll be in deep trouble

Here the legal process is usually considerably quicker. As people are able to
act in self defense if necessary. And only use deadly force as a last resort.

Force used in self defense that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm 
is justified only if a person reasonably thinks that such force is necessary 
to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Here there is also a Stand-Your-Ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand"

or "no duty to retreat" law). It is a justification in a criminal case, whereby

a defendant can "stand their ground" and use force without retreating, in order

to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or perceived
threats. 

An example is where there is no duty to retreat from any place where they
have  a lawful right to be, and that they may use any level of force if they
reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of being an imminent and
immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death. One case describes "the
'stand your ground' law... a person has a right to expect absolute safety 
in a place they have a right to be, and may use deadly force to repel an
unlawful intruder.

>> I help provide gun safety training at several local locations. Training
>> that the  state currently requires. The majority of the students are
>> children ranging in ages from 9 to 20 years old. It is important that
>> a society that has,  and owns gun knows how to safely use, store, and
>> operate a firearm. And to properly respect it.

> You are absolutely right. My problem is that my society haven't evolved
> to such a level, and I believe that, if the gun laws here would be softer, we
> would be back into the Old West times. But that's a Brazilian issue.

There is the possible position that the criminally minded people there are
comfortable in the feeling that they can comit their crimes without  the fear
of their victums being able to effectively defend themselves.

Jeff

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-3
 * Origin: The Ouija Board (1:282/1031)